From: mleeper@optonline.net
CAPSULE: The image of THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954)
is imprinted on our cultural psychology perhaps only surpassed
by the visages of King Kong, Frankenstein's creature, and
Godzilla. The creature himself is an icon more recognizable
than any number of screen monsters that have appeared in the
20th-century. The science of the script is laughably
problematic, but does not seem much of a flaw. What is
remembered is a short sequence with Julie Adams swimming on
the surface while unknown to her the creature is swimming a
symmetric dance. This is certainly one of the most fondly
remembered of the science fiction films of the 1950s.
It probably is not for the script, which frankly is flawed,
but some the visual images work well in the film. Still,
the film is a classic.
Cast: Julie Adams, Richard Carlson, Richard Denning.
Dir: Jack Arnold.
A scientist doing research on the Amazon finds a fossil hand of
some strange creature that is part amphibian but still very
humanlike. He goes off to show other scientists what once lived in
the Brazilian Amazon. Unbeknownst to him there are fresher
specimens around and the real thing is extremely nasty. An
expedition to recover more of the fossil at first meets with
failure until the site of the search is moved to the nearby Black
Lagoon. There the expedition finds itself prey to the title
creature. Actually the creature does seem to stray from the
lagoon, since that is where we first see him, but most of the time
is lagoon seems to be where you find him and he is anxious to
defend this soggy turf.
The film has two basic conflicts. Obviously there is the creature
against the humans. And then there is a conflict of the success-
oriented scientist against the curiosity-oriented scientist, but
the script of the rivalry of the two scientists is cliched. The
characters are one-dimensional and the plot reduces the title
character to little more than just an angry bear besieging the
expedition. There is one advantage there, the creature is of a
believable strength. He is stronger than a human, but not absurdly
so. The is a more believable creature than the living tank in
ALIEN. The one touch that makes the creature interesting is his
fascination with Kay (played by Julie Adams), the female lead
actress, even though that makes little biological sense. The
creature would be attracted to a gill-woman. There is the
remarkable "underwater ballet" where Kay swims on the surface and
the creature swims under her does have a sort of eroticism. Also
making little biological sense is the crossing of an amphibian with
something so human-shaped. They are really pushing convergent
evolution particularly making the creature attracted to Kay.
Consider how many more people know what the creature looks like and
how few can picture the Martians from WAR OF THE WORLDS. Does the
writer think he himself could be attracted to a female gorilla, no
matter how cute?
But where the film gets its real class is in the quality of its
cinematography. Unlike Jack Arnold's It Came from Outer Space, the
shots are remarkably well-composed. While it is a little less true
of the underwater photography over which there was less control,
the majority of frames could stand by themselves as stills. It is
hard to balance that sense of composition with the demands of 3D
photography. The visual sense of this film is really the main
reason the film is so fondly remembered. The best touch of the
film is that look of the creature makes it one of the most
memorable monsters of the 1950s. On the other hand pieces of the
dialogue are awkward and the little science lectures that often
even get the science very wrong.
Obviously this monster is one that has struck some chord in the
audience that goes far beyond the film. This film gets a +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 7/10.
Film Credits:
What others are saying:
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
